Go to page

the populations of ancient Northeast Africa and the Nile Valley in general were a hodgepodge of distinct black African (NIger-Congo speakers, Nilo Saharan speakers, Cushitic speakers, Tamil-Indians) throughout the entire Nile Valley after desertification and prior to slew of non African invasions.

The Tamil are of African origin. The Ganges river in India is named after an ancient Kushite King. The region of India was in fact simply an extension of Kush (Hindu Kush). That is why there are so many places named in a variation of Kush (i.e. Kish). The M1 maternal lineage links them with the Cushitic speakers in the Horn of Africa today. The language and cultures of the Tamil and the ancient Indus Valley civilization have been proven to overlap with various types of Africans namely the Mande of Western Saharan Africa today. The cohabitation of ancient Sahara between the Tamil and the other types of Africans is seen with the African and origins and spreading of millets.

Notice however that this study finding them to be indisputably African (yet another study refuting the claim of the Al Busir study saying that SSA ancestry is only hundreds of years old) did not receive any press coverage.

CNN made headline stories about one now debunked study to inappropriately ascribe our African heritage to peoples of the Near East. There is a clear agenda by Western academia for hundreds of years now to belittle African history.

"Dental trait analysis of A-Group fossils found that they were closely related to Afroasiatic-speaking populations inhabiting Northeast Africa and the Maghreb. [...] Among the recent groups, the A-Group makers were morphologically closest to Afroasiatic-speaking populations in the Horn of Africa, followed by the Shawia and KabyleBerber populations of Algeria as well as Bedouin groups in Morocco, Libya and Tunisia. The A-Group's dental morphology has been found to be phenotypically distinct from those belonging to recent Negroid populations in Sub-Saharan Africa but with a special affinity to the contemporary population found in Lower Nubia.[5]"

Afroasiatic populations in the Horn of Africa and modern-day Nubians have substantial Eurasian admixture. Ancient Nubians were a similarly mixed-race population, the result of prehistoric Eurasian migrations into Africa.

"The earliest known examples of Egyptian royal iconography, such as, e.g., the representation of the Red Crown on a late Naqada I (c. 3500 BC) pottery vessel from Abydos or the triumphal scenes in the painting from Hierakonpolis Tomb 100 (c. 3400-3300 BC) are much older than the Qustul censer. It seems thus that it was the Qustul rulers who adopted symbols of royal authority developed in Egypt and not vice versa.[3]"

We have plenty of DNA evidence from neolithic Greece and the inhabitants were genetically Europeans, not black Africans. Of course this was already well known but 'afrocentrics' prefer fantasies to reality.

Clyde Winters appears to have serious mental issues and is a notorious liar, he's certainly not a reliable source for anything to do with history.

Kushite aka Meroitic was spoken in the Kushite kingdom in eastern Africa, Bactrian was spoken in the Kushan kingdom in Afghanistan. He essentially claims that these languages are related based on the sole fact that the names of the kingdoms where they were spoken are somewhat similar.

Kushite aka Meroitic was spoken in the Kushite kingdom in eastern Africa, Bactrian was spoken in the Kushan kingdom in Afghanistan. He essentially claims that these languages are related based on the sole fact that the names of the kingdoms where they were spoken are somewhat similar.

"Dental trait analysis of A-Group fossils found that they were closely related to Afroasiatic-speaking populations inhabiting Northeast Africa and the Maghreb. [...] Among the recent groups, the A-Group makers were morphologically closest to Afroasiatic-speaking populations in the Horn of Africa, followed by the Shawia and KabyleBerber populations of Algeria as well as Bedouin groups in Morocco, Libya and Tunisia. The A-Group's dental morphology has been found to be phenotypically distinct from those belonging to recent Negroid populations in Sub-Saharan Africa but with a special affinity to the contemporary population found in Lower Nubia.[5]"

Quoting word for word the original research from Wikipedia is not what I would consider a refutation. The "Afro-Asiatic" language family is fake (it has never been reconstructed), and is Western scholars attempt to revamp the Hamitic Hypothesis. The aDNA results coming from the A-Group Nubian remains found them to be largely Nilotic;

"Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data tosuggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elementsduring the early state formation in the Nile Valley, and as the states thrived there was a
dominance by other elements particularly Nuba/Nubians"

The research suggested that they were the first types of Africans to found the culture (archaeological evidence suggest this as well), and other groups of Africans belong to other Haplogroups such as the widespread E followed. It was a limited number of samples given, so conversely it could yield more African diversity (namely E) if more aDNA is done on A-group with the full range of samples.

The only population that you could possibly be referring to are the Amharic (Semitic speaking) Ethiopians, who were not apart of the ancient Kemetic population. They left Africa for Israel (just like the Niger-Congo/ "Jewish" Lemba of South Africa) and migrated back into the continent via the Arabian Peninsula. Oh by the way...those Bantu speaking Lemba South Africa are also "Heavily Eurasian" based on their 40-60% haplogroup J, but they still look no different than their neighboring Africans. That should debunk anything that you all have to say about the implications of "Eurasian DNA" (90% of all human DNA is African) on African appearances.

The Oromo Ethiopians who speak Cushitic (completely African language) were originally apart of the Africoid population that laid down the foundations for ancient Kemet.

You all are just trying to make some random noise at this point. Northeastern Africa has been under constant invasion since the first century BC, despite that fact they are still distinctly African (close to Cushitic Branch). The modern Nubians and Egyptians have retained the elements of the Cushitic branch of Africoid populations who remained on the Nile Valley after foreign invasions;

"Genetic continuum of the Nubians with their kin in southern Egypt is indicated by comparable frequencies of E-V12 the predominant M78 subclade among southern Egyptians."

If there were "back migrations" into Africa (or back home) All people prior to this time were melanianted Africans. The Sinai peninsula is not a magical racial corridor that depigments your skin when you cross it. That's such an insane notion that you all try to push. It makes no sense.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.